Any sufficiently advanced technology is in distinguishable from magic.

Last year, the federal government went to war with Apple over whether it could legally force the corporation to assist it in penetrating iPhone encryption when said device was obtained as part of a criminal investigation. The case was widely seen as an attempt by the FBI to create sympathy for forcing companies to bypass their own encryption schemes and unlock hardware on-demand. But Apple’s staunch defense and widespread dissent in the court of public opinion led the bureau to back down. The FBI contracted with a third party to break into the device and dropped the case.

Jeff Sessions (R-AL), President Trump’s choice for attorney general, is unlikely to let that decision stand once he is confirmed — and he’s expected to be confirmed with strong Republican support. Sessions submitted written testimony to questions from Patrick Leahy (D-VT), and the answers aren’t encouraging if you favor strong encryption without government-mandated backdoors.

Jeff Sessions, at his hearing swearing-in.

Sessions was asked (PDF): “Do you agree with NSA Director Rogers, Secretary of Defense Carter, and other national security experts that strong encryption helps protect this country from cyberattack and is beneficial to the American peoples’ digital security?”

He responded: “Encryption serves many valuable and important purposes. It is also critical, however, that national security and criminal investigators be able to overcome encryption, under lawful authority, when necessary to the furtherance of national-security and criminal investigations.”

The battle over encryption has been tumultuous, with multiple high-profile figures weighing in, and various testimonies from current and former heads of government agencies contributing conflicting opinions. FBI director James Comey, who will remain under the Trump Administration, has advocated for giving the FBI backdoors (or front doors), to device data. But both NSA Director Admiral Michael Rogers and former NSA and CIA chief Michael Hayden have directly refuted Comey, saying “I actually think end-to-end encryption is good for America.”

Trump has previously spoken out against Apple’s actions in 2016 and has generally favored expanding the powers of the government in matters of national security. He has repeatedly stated that his will be a “law and order presidency,” and about the need for increased security and a strong cyberspace presence. In this regard, Trump, Comey, and Sessions himself are all wrong. Repeated testimony from experts in the field, as well as real-life events, have demonstrated that government backdoors do not work, for the simple reason that no government can guarantee it remains the sole entity in charge of or aware of those backdoors.

Last August, Microsoft accidentally leaked a debugging tool it created to allow its own developers to test unsigned code, forcing the company to release a patch against it. This type of accident will happen. There is no near-term cryptographic system so good it can’t be broken, no code so perfect that anyone is willing to testify it represents an unbreakable encryption method. Given this, there shouldn’t be any debate about whether government-mandated backdoors weaken encryption or not. They did under President Obama, they will under President Trump.